Bombers are too powerful.

[player1 fanatic]

By the way, I don't think that bombers are anything special when bombing cities, since units in then get various defensive bonuses.

The time when they shine is when attacking the units on open (like several enemy Tanks or Cavalries).

 

[Sark6354201]

Originally posted by Longasc
Well, I think this is one of the easiest things solved.

I suggested land units not taking lethal damages in Cities or fortresses.

But even if this is not considered a solution, it is easy to mod the Standard rules simply by removing the lethal land bombardement of bombers, only one checkerbox.

The whole Flak issue arose because people asked for a way to counter nations that have a tech lead and get flight quite some techs earlier.

Admiral Tarton made a point with Carriers - I think that Flak should be made available much earlier than flight.

Why? To give those who lag behind a measure to defend themselves until they get flight themselves!


You can still hit them hard enough when they have only Flak, it is not really too strong...

Bombers make things easy. I level city after city, sometimes I have so many bombers that I can destroy cities nearly completely before my Tanks drive in to claim my rights of conquest...

I was not too much ahead in this game on Monarch level, and my military success would have been guaranteed even without bombers, BUT... bombers made things SO MUCH EASIER.

Well, I now think they may probably keep their lethal land bombardement, but even if I gave Techs for flight for free before declaring war, the fight was still in my favor.

But they could at least shoot down some bombers, the Ottomans got NO Flight from me, and I will wipe them out in 3 turns probably...

I divided bombers and troops equally between Babylon and Ottomans for Conquest, taking in mind the military and productive strength of both Countries. The Ottomans were somewhat superior, but they had no means to defend against bombers.

They got the shaft.

If it's too easy move up another difficulty level before you want to change the game mechanics!

And what is this, giving them a chance to defend themselves? Should we let other nations get Infantry if I get Tanks so they have a chance? Having air superiority does mean easy victory, and it shouldn't change... time and time agian it has been proven in history.

 

[Longasc]

Seems as if you are fond of air power... perhaps you should really take your advice and move up in difficulty yourself so that you will really need a big advantage...

or perhaps prove yourself as one of the victims of history and air power?

 

[HiroHito]

I'm playing on tiny, chieftain, 2 ages ahead of everyone else, and oh surprise ! My bombers are owning everyone !! Could you believe that ? Please...nerf...it...now !

 

[zurichuk]

Originally posted by HiroHito
I'm playing on tiny, chieftain, 2 ages ahead of everyone else, and oh surprise ! My bombers are owning everyone !! Could you believe that ? Please...nerf...it...now !

not sure if that is a good reason to nerf it alone when you are 2 ages ahead anyway, i like it as it is, but that's because when i reach bombers, normally the ai has them shortly before or after, i would try playing a level where your tech is roughly level with the AI and see how much fun it is then

 

[Greyhawk1]

Holy cow! This thread has ballooned! Now this reminds me of the Unreal Tournament 2003 forums where someone brought up the subject of brightskins. If you you dont know what I'm talking about - its a skin that makes your foes stand out from where they are hiding. Controversial but accepted by the 'pro' community.

The subject is hotly debated over there...it seems we see similar passions arising over this. To tell you the truth I'm pretty suprised at the level of contention. I've used the editor to remove lethal bombards from all units except the H'watcha - since its a UU, it doesnt bother me. I guess everyone else can leave it or change it as necessary.

I'm not that bothered since I found out I could take lethal bombard off the units anyway. Now the playing field is back in balance with lower tech civs given a chance of survival - which I like. I'm not a fan of total destruction of civs. I would like to play a game where everyone survives to the end. Sadly that hasnt happened yet.

 

[zurichuk]

yep it has ballooned

actually one advantage of lethal bombardment when 'playing on a level playing-field', is that the AI bombs the previously invincible armies rather than ignore them, i've actually lost an army to the AI this way

 

[HiroHito]

sorry i shoulda added the /sarcasm =/

Anyway I dont think bombers are overpowered, the idea of protecting units inside fortifications & cities (maybe only those with def upgrades nd make it scalable) from the deadly bombing is good, but needs testing.

 

[tomart109]

I think there should be a middle ground between the old, Non-lethal bombardment, and the new way, where that last hit is just as easy as the first. History shows that it is much more difficult to finish off the last, hunkered-down cadres of a unit. There are too many examples to ignore, where carpet-bombing was unable to completely kill the defenders, and yet I see the play-balance reasons to make it possible.

It should be much less likely to get that last hit, than all the others.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Originally posted by HiroHito
sorry i shoulda added the /sarcasm =/

Anyway I dont think bombers are overpowered, the idea of protecting units inside fortifications & cities (maybe only those with def upgrades nd make it scalable) from the deadly bombing is good, but needs testing.

Actually, that doesn't solve anything.

First, units in citeis have huge defensive bonuses, so they are difficult to be killed quickly anyway.

Compared to that, units on open, like Tank or Cavalry on offensive, are much jucier targets.

Even the tile improvements, considering that now bombing leaver craters.

I would say ships too, but they now have AA, so no problem there.

 

[Sark6354201]

Originally posted by Longasc
Seems as if you are fond of air power... perhaps you should really take your advice and move up in difficulty yourself so that you will really need a big advantage...

or perhaps prove yourself as one of the victims of history and air power?

I'm fond of air power because i think it does a good job of simulating how important it is.

Already have moved up to Emperor, which will probably have me cursing bombers and the ilk

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Part of my approach was to introduce a very weak fighter (read: biplane) which becomes available with combustion (I also had an WWI style tank appear at this point too )! It's not really effective at eliminating massed bomber runs, but it does give those Civs lagging behind an earlier form of 'Air Superiority' and aerial bombardment capability! I do agree, though, with making flak available with either combustion or replacable parts, as it represents the ability to fire shrapnel and shells up to high altitude (hmmm, perhaps they should bring back 'Explosives' as a tech, and have it appear then!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
perhaps they should bring back 'Explosives' as a tech,

When should it appear? When the ancient Chinese invented it? I'd like to see that - explosives in the ancient age!

 

[Oddible]

Originally posted by tomart109
When should it appear? When the ancient Chinese invented it? I'd like to see that - explosives in the ancient age!

Originally posted by Sark6354201
This doensn't make sense, no military would design something to combat a threat that has not been invented yet... much less manufacture them.

We could use them as fireworks for festivals until planes were invented


But seriously, military investment in theoretical threats is probably in the billions of dollars in the US alone.


.

 

[Bluemofia]

yeah, Russian nukes. korean nukes. chinese nukes.

also the threat of: Iraqi resistors. possibly arab people pissed at us for attacking iraq. and afganistan.

dosent it make you wish it was only US vs the Soviet Union?

 

[HiroHito]

I hope you are kidding about the cold war dude...Osama bin Laden and his clowns cant even start comparing to the good ole Commies...

 

[Bluemofia]

yes, i was kidding. i read it off a magazine somewhere.

 

[HiroHito]

heh sorry shoulda knew, maybe I'm too serious whenever talking about politics

 

[marioh]

I agree that lethal bombard for bombers is too powerful as it is now.
I like the idea of having lethal bombard against naval units, and units out in the open. But if they're in cities or fortifications, they (bombers) should either have a very difficult time finishing off the units (maybe something like 10% success) or not be able to finish off the units in the cities or fortifications.

 

[Arathorn]

Did anybody actually read Scouting Sid? It's at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67720

All your arguments about how bombers are only broken if you're ahead ignore the very real fact that it's simply not true. Back to the Scouting Sid game Reagan mentioned and you all ignored... We were approximately an age behind when we finally scrapped our way into flight. That was 1475. You can read from there, if you'd like...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1511180#post1511180

It was over in 21 turns -- by 1580 we'd smashed one of the most powerful civilizations on the planet and won the game. Balanced? BAH! Not even close. The extra range of bombers added for C3C alone makes them a very useful item. Lethal sea bombard has its time and place, too, and I think it should stay. But lethal land bombard is horribly broken.

Arathorn